The Sun. — London, England, 1838-04-03 00:00:00

tie would no wmove the in sert i on o f a c l ause to em awer the Magistratesof Bow -street, the Magistrates of all rylebone Police -office and the Commissioners of Police, a t e rnes to claim entrance into the Hippodrome, when open a "Y purp oses, otherwise than for repairs, to be executed by eeservants of the proprietors. The claus e h aving been read a first time, e et,Sir I NGL IS wi s h e d to know i f the Hon. Member for t he rYle Bill hone meant to t a k e t h e di scuss i on on the question that do pass, or he proposed to take it separately on each c l ause. je c ; Nir . HALL replied that he would take the sense of the e t,l , e on the question that the I3ill do pass. -'eptairi WOOD slid that the Under Secretary for the to-l 'uthis le Department laboured under a great mistake with respect nil'. The establishment could not go on without e interference of Parliament, and the levying a tax on .--( coue in supp or t o f it. The whole bus;ness was ajugg 1 le ." Heatry r, hear," and laughter)—and the Government were eliding their assista nce to it. ~,The House then went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. B. ,Y _ eirt enes( in th e c h air. Ur ' the fir st of Mr. Meree's clauses being proposed, f er r * ESTCOURT objected t o it s p ass i ng i n i ts p resent b form. Why coufine th e powers g i ven b y i t to the Maryle the t 005 M agistrates? In his opi n i on t h ey oug h t to b e exten d e d t 1 ) 1 whole o f the Metropolitan Magistrates, who would bl erehy b e empowered to exercise a controul over the esta- N Bh t ment, and, if necessary, to visit it like any other nuisance. , e p P. MAULS said that all he wanted was to vest a con -I.°4' in some parties or other, with a view to the better regu ation of the establishment. Mr. ESTCOURT said it did not appear that the Magis ttrates of Msrylebone were so peculiarly at leisure, as to .at ,Fki to this business.—( Hear, hear.) He should vote against the clause, because he felt it to be exceedingly objectionable In principle. :Nll% HA WES strongly o bj ecte d to t h e c l ause. H e wante d - know wiry Magistrates were to b e appo i nte d i n this tiT the t limanner. ' They h a d a M etropo li tan - po li ce , an d w h y y want Magistrates to go to the race-course ? An HoN. AIRMIIRR—To clear it.—( Laughter. ) 'aMr. HAWES said it appeared to him that the Police cted he the best parties for that purpose, but he denied that to be the duty of any part of the Metropolitan-police. If ad- Mitted there, there was no other public place into which they Might not be admitted. H e h ope d t h e sense o f the Com mittee would be take n on this clause. It was enough for 'llagistrates to decide on cases when brought before them, and be hoped the tines had gone by when Magistrates instead of constables went earch of offenders. ~.oLnord DUNGANNON concurred in the observation of the t t ,l_ • Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) and ne Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Liaises). If it were ne cessary to bring Magistrates h ere, why confine it to a parti cular number —why should not the Magistrates of Mid dutdlesex have admission at all times. It was more the y of M ag i strates to judge and decide cases as y come before them, than be themselves acting the part of Policemen. This measure, if passed into a law would be a perfect abomination. —(Hear, and laughter.) It would be the tesort of every thief and scoundrel round the metropolis— (Laughter) —and he earnestly hoped those Honourable Gen tlemen who in so very praiseworthy a manner supported the Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath, would be most Prominent in opposing such a measure as this, in every stage. If they were the real friends of virtue, and the foes of rice, he should not appeal to them in vain. He certain sh Pose th e th e passing of that clause, on the principl e l t y hat ou he ld conp ceived it to be an utter absurdity. If they wante d M agistrates, W hy not extend it t o county Magistrat es generally ; why aelect a particular seifid He should give hi s decid e d oSpecified number. He should give his decided Opposition t o t hi s clause. number. Mr. HALL complained of the conduct of the Government tr ates in taking th e quest i on out of the hand, of the local Magis , th e prov wh is o wionseof the Bill re the best qualified to j u d ge of what should be After a few words front Mr. FR E S H FI E L D, Mr. F. MAULE said, as the opinion of the House ap peared to be against it he should withdraw the clause.— (Much confusion.) too Captain WOOD thought the proper way would be to put clause, and l et i t be negatived, if the Hon. Member did t intend to press it.—( Cries of " Go on !" " Withdraw I" and much laughter.) begatived The CHAIRMAN put the quest i on , an d the clause was The House then resumed. Mr. F. MAULE then proposed to add a clause, that the PPropriet or f or the time being should pay the expenses of the ° lice, and that any persons committing offences agai the l aw there should be committed by a Magistrate to the House 'of Correction for one month. Mr. HALL wished to call the attention of the House to the injustice of this clause. Persons committing offences against the law at this place of entertainment were liable to thbe imprisoned one month ; but no such penalty was to await eprop r i etor . H e thought if the House agreed to the clause, proprietor ought to be included. On the question that the clause be committed, Mr. HOPE said if the Bill went to create a nuisance, it was then the duty of the Home Office to oppose it altogether— (llear)—it was surely lot their duty to legalize the nuisance, by introducing clauses into the Bill for the regulation of the Place by the police. Lord DUNGANNON said, if the clause under considera ti"u were as futile and absurd as the two which they had just heard read, it was a mere wasting of the time of the House to t ° , en with it —any thing more absurd he had never seen ere that House. ', Te l. ' P. MAULE said, if the Hippodrome were put under iv id l ie r Police regulations, it would not become a nuisance— that ° . i t those regulations it might. Maintaining, as he did, public --`Lie institution would be Of great advantage to the e, and on that ground it was that he was doing t " in , his power to render it as little obnoxious to the Noble Lord as possible. li cl Mr. E STCOURT hoped that the Hon. Under-Secretary rn not mean to acknowledge that the establishment would be do a nuisance, even if those clauses were acted upon. Mr. F. MA ULE—Certainly not. Mr. ESTCOURT understood the Under-Secretary for 111 e Hom e D e p artment to a d m i t that after this clause was intro tl,uced, the nuisance would still remain in an unmitigated state, and that the only object of this clause was to prevent breaches of the peace, and to punish offenders. Mr. FOX JIAULE considered the Hippodrome, if put under proper regulations, would not be a nuisance. Captain WOOD considered the Hippodrome would be ge nerally injurious to the public.—(Cries of " Q ues ti on , ques - Iver time") Wh at were the police want e d f or if t h e esta bli s h ment e not likely to he of an improper kind ?—( Hear, hear,)__ ae!d (continued the Hon. and G a ll ant M em b er) I shall move, Sir, that you do leave the Chair this day six months.—(Roars of laughter, in the midst of which the Speaker left the Chair.) The Hoes 'then went into Committee on the clause. 1 w as he Hresoouse resumed, a n d t h e c l ause having been reported, ride r , lved that it s h ou ld b e added to the- Bill by way of thatMr' F. M AULE then mo ve d anot h er clause, to the effect bo undaries no wine, spi r i tuous liquors, or beer, be ever sold within the o undaries of the Hippodrome. Lord GR ANYIL LE SONIERSET o Iftray pposed the clause. e than it it were carried it would make the Bill much worn Houses f or t h e sale of beer would be set up vicinity o f the Hippodrome ; and the Bill allowed the in the police no control over them. Mr. HALL was opposed to the clause. would b Police w i t hi n the grounds, but how did the There Bill provide fo r preventing the recurrence of those disgraceful scenes which had taken place without the boundaries.—( Ilear.) Mr. WA K LEY was astonished to hear his Honourable Friend speak of disgraceful sc enes . Th ere had been no hibipro o f of any such before the C omm i ttee. The clause pro ted not only the sale but the consumption of spirituous liquors, wine and beer. What objection could there be to P i e °Pie wh o went from town for the sake of recreation taking ti`!(e• oven refr es h ments with them?--( Hear, hear.) If that 3 / 4 teoge were a body of tee-totallers, he could understand their Passing such a clause.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) tut if they wore not, and he (Mr. Wakley) was sure that the (L lio n. Member ( Mr. F. Maule) was not a tea-totaller— aughter)—he hoped the House would not sanction the pro_ hibition of the consumption of liquors, &c., but only of their Sale.—( Hear, hear.) As the clause now stood any work- Man, for instance, would be liable to a penalty for drinking a glass of beer. Ile hoped the House would not object to the erasure of the words " or consume," in the 2d lino ; again in the 4th line, the word " distribute;" and in the 13th line, the Words " or distributing."—( Hear. ) Sir R. INGLIS said whatever objection there was to the clause, he did not consider that an objection which was stated 1 1 the Hon. Member for Finsbury. It should be observed, that the pen a lty did not apply to the consuming, but to the selling or distributing. Mr• WAKLEY was aware of that. But the violation of `ue Act, i n respect to the prohibition of the consumption, / '"ld be a misdemeanor. And though the penalty was not tl 4,!ta.Ched to the con sumpt i on, t h e prohibition of that, or of the istribution, was equally objectionable.—( Hear. ) Sir E. KNATCIIBULL said these clauses, if the Go vernment deemed them essential to the Bill, should have been l t n e tr educed b efore. He wished the House to go at once to X o, ee q u estion of th e pass i ng of the B i ll, and throw it out. et . Mr. FOX MAULE said he certainly did not wish to prohibit the consumption of liquors, &c. which were brought t th n t he ground by the parties themselves. And be would werefore object to the amendments of his Hon. Friend (. r. , 4 1 1 ,' I eY• )—( Hear, hear. he Heuse went into Committee. pgr WAKLE PS amendment s were ma d e, an d t h e Cl ause - e ee. B ill, 'hd toe House then resumed, and the clause was added to the t . The House then went into Committee on the fourth addi lcr cla use, Mr. R. STEUART in the chair. s ° opposition Was given to the clause. The House re -Weed, and Mr St ted the clause as agreed to. m t. ,„ CllB.l repor " YNN said that nothing could be more inco.n hla etteee.sr mischievous in principle than the course which Prop oait " Pursued with respect to this Bill. The en eine :g el such a number of additional clauses in to Put it out o f the power of the House called t h e be Judge the merit s of whole Bill, which they would now 0 r _p .. n to di scuss. falle n fro u nl •X th ehlAULE agreed in principle with what had Hon. Member, but in this particular instance neZ.1.1.15,1.,n.0t avoid departing from it. H eel "ALL said, one reason Is by he did not divide the sesieri'°, _on.tbese clauses \Nes, that there might be but one di greater `: i nct that tellers brought forward they might throw a he ar.) , r eg b eee of ridicule on the Bill then before : — (Hea . r, t he fs e r e n biect of this Bill was at direct variance with in gs of the inhabitants of that part of the metropolis.—( Hear.) It was to shut out a public highway through certain ground called the Hippodrome, which was to be enclosed for the purpose of pi ivate speculation and pecuniary ads - ante:re. It appeared that a person named White, who was not the proprietor of the premises—who had not even the semblance of a lung lease, but an unexpired term of seventeen or nineteen years—took this property and enclosed it, and finding that a public bridleway existed through the centre of the property, he went to the Magistrates of Middlesex, end consulted with them as to the expediency of shutting up the footpath, and he could not find two willing to close it. He then put every obstacle in the way of the public enjoying the right--he dug trenches, threw up barriers, and actually flooded the lower part of the fields, in order that the footpath might not be enjoyed; and finding that he was still frustrated he came here, not having asked a Member of the county of Middlesex to introduce his Bill to the House—but he int: oduced a Bill for the purpose of forcing the public from the path th e y h a d hitherto enjoyed. With regard to the establishment of the Hippodrome, he (Mr. Hall) contended that it was at variance with tha feelings of the inhabitants of that part of the metro polis. Petitions from all classes of society, from the highest to the very lowest, had been put in against the passing of the Bill, and only one in favour of the Bill. This was not entertained as a political question, but by all classes pos sessing whatever political or religious feelings. He was re quested to ask whether these classes were brought forward by the Hon. Member himself, as an individual Member of the House, or as having the sanction of Government ; for he did not think when the Government had enough to do to bring forward other measures, they would waste their time in bringing forward a Bill of this kind.—( Hear, hear.) He objected on the part of those whom he had the honour of representing that the Metropolitan Police force should be em ployed in matters of this description. Those whom he repre sented paid one-sixth towards the maintenance of the Metro politan Police, and objected to the employment of this force. Upon all grounds he objected to the Bill. He considered it an encroachment upon a most important right the people now enjoyed. The projector having failed in his at tempts so far as regarded local magistracy to shut up that right of way, he ( Mr. Hall) thought it was unfair in that branch of the Legislature to sanction any measure which would deprive the people of those just rights.—( Cries of " Question.") He thought that these clauses, and the conduct of the Government lately in matters of a similar description, instead of attending to the great constitutional questions which the people had set their hearts upon, had thrown a greater degree of ridicule upon that Bill than anything else. His Hon. Friend had stated there was no opposition to the Bill in Committee, but he would remind the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Hall) had stated his opposition to the preamble of the Bill, which was the great point in dispute, very strongly— ( Renewed cries of " Question.") He hoped the House would not interfere in those private local matters which ought to be settled by the Magistrates of the counties in which they were situated. He should most certainly oppose the Bill. Mr. BYNG had a greater objection to that Bill, than perhaps any private Bill that had ever been brought before the House. He had been always a friend to the recreations of the people, and Honourable Gentlemen had stated that they supported the Bill because it would add to the recreations of the people. He maintained that recreation would never answer the purpose of the promoters of the Bill. They had gone to the most enormous expense, and recreation would never repay them. Nothing but vice and profligacy would make that great outlay worth their while.— ( Hear.) They had been obliged to put down several fairs in the neighbourhood of this great metropolis, where there was a population of up cards of 1,500,000, and where 200,000 rose every morning not knowing how to gain their daily livelihood. They had been obliged to put down various fairs in the neigh bourhood of London, at Hampstead and at Edmonton, and therefore it was he did hope that the House would not sanction this Bill, and bring down upon this unfortunate neighbourhood, all those nuisances which had been antici pated.--( Hear, hear.) He had presented a petition to the louse against the Bill, signed by no less than 1,650 in dividuals, amen. whom were many Clergymen, some of whom stated what was suffered by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood last summer and autumn ; there were many boarding schools there, and the petitioners were afraid that licentiousness might take place. On the whole, he would give his most decided opposition to the mea wire. Mr. HATTER rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." He was unable to recognise in the present Bill any prin ciple on which Parliament could be called upon to act. When the Bill was first introduced, its ostensible object was to enable the promoter to establish a race course, and thereby destroy the rights of the public for the be nefit of a private individual.—( Cries of " Divide, divide," and " Hear.") When the Bill progressed forward in it, course to a Committee, its ostensible object was sedu lously kept in view—( Hear)—and, he must say, that, looking at the clauses, he saw something that had the air of plausibility, but there was a total want of every good principle.--( Cries of divide, divide, and oh, oh.) What was the course that was pur sued by the present promoters of the Bill? Why, when his rights were disputed he went before the Magistrates, and there the rights that he alleged were decided against him.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He then attempted by force to assert his rights. He brought no less than nine actions against as many individuals who attempted to deny the rights that he claimed. —( Increased cries of " Divide, divide.") It was a maxim in the legislation of that House, that private interests must give way to the public demands, as in the case of canals and railroads, which were established for the public benefit ; but the converse of that proposition he had never heard contended for by any person.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide," and much uproar.) The House might as well establish in Hyde Park weekly markets or monthly fairs.—( Laughter, and loud cries of " Divide.") He could bear testimony that the road from Turnham-green to Bayswater—he could bear his sleepless testimony to the fact, that along the while of that road was one scene of drunkenness and riot.—(Laughter, and much confusion, amidst which the Hon. Gentleman sat down.) Mr. WAKL EY rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," which drowned the first sentence of the Hon. Member. Ho said that his having been on the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and where it was passed without a divi sion, he thought it was unfair that 20 gentlemen should be heard against the Bill and not one in its favour. He had especially to complain of the conduct of the last speaker. That Gentleman, as a Member of that House and a lawyer, ought to have known that the proper place where his testimony should have been produced was before that Committee. In that House he was a party interested, and his exparte statements could not therefore be received. Counsel were heard against the Bill, and witnesses were called against it : but, after evidence on both sides was heard, the Committee came to a decision without any division having taken place. What was the real charac ter of this proceeding ? A gentleman, who had established a public institution came before the House, and asked the House to give him the means of conducting it in a proper and orderly manner, and he wished so to conduct the institu tion that it should become of great public advantage. Then with reference tc the footpath. The witnesses before the Com mittee stated that the footpath was used as leading to a single farm, and to a place not much frequented, called Wormwood Scrubbs. No individual came before the Committee to state that he would be subjected to the slightest pecuniary loss by its being stopped u p. H e (Mr. W.) had for five years 'been in the habit of going along that footpath, and during those five years he never saw twenty individuals on it. The footpath being, closed. what were the public to get as an equivalent ? (Cries of " Divide, divide.") When there was a noise in the House he was sorry to say it generally pro ceeded from his side of it.—( Great laughter.) On the other side of the House, if there was impatience, it was always expressed in a more mild and gentlemanly tone.— ( Renewed laughter and cheers from the Conservatives. ) What was the benefit which the public would derive, in return, for closing the footpath in question? First of all there would there he 150 acres of open land within a mile and a half of Oxford-street, on which the public might walk on Sundaes without the payment of a single farthing. That of itself was a very great advantage, to that densely populated neighbourhood. Then, again, on Easter-Monday, on Easte r -T ues d ay , Whi tmon d ay , an d Tuesday, and on the first Monday in June, July, August, and September, the working-people of this metropolis would be entitled by this Bill to admission at the Hippodrome, there to follow what amusement they pleased, to amuse themselves at cricket, quoits, foot-ball, or any other game they pleased, on the payment of two -pence.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the parties in the neighbourhood deemed it a nuisance, why did they not adopt some legal pro ceeding ? He did hope the House would have some feeling for the working people of the metropolis, and decide in favour of this Bill ; because a greater boon could scarcely be conferred upon them. —( Hear, hear, hear. ) Lord TEIGNMOU TH said he had been requested by a considerable body of his constituents to give his decided oppo sition to the Bill. He thought the clauses which had been brought forward were quite futile. He wished that his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Hall) had pressed his opposition to the Bill on the third reading; he was persuaded the House would then Isaac been saved much unnecessary discussion. The most frivolous pretexts had been brought forward to justify the Bill. It was said, that the Bill was only for the diversion of a footpath ; and the Hon. Member for Finsbury had stated on the evidence, or rather the no-evidence before the Committee, that the footpath was of no consequence. He (Lord Teign mouth) had presented a petition from the minister, churchwardens, overseers, and vestry of Paddington, stating that the footpath was of the highest importance to their health and pleasure.—( Hear.) This was also stated by the parish of Kensington, and he was surprised that no evidence of this kind had been adduced before the Cemmittee.—( Hear. ) Ile did not object to places of public recreation. And he would support a proposition for setting., apart, or purchasing, Primrose Hill, for purposes of public recreation, to be open, free, on Sundays, and on week days, for harmless a games, such as cricket—( Ilear,)—a n d h e wished more money had been expended on appropriating large tracts of land for these purposes in the neighbourhood of all large towns. But when be came to the consideration of a Bill for establish ing a resort for hundreds and thousands, he begged to quote a short passage from the " Sporting Magazine"—( Laughter, 44 Hear, hear," " Oh, oh," and " Divide")__a publication which would doubtless carry greater weight with the support ers of the Bill than aught that he could say.--( Hear.) The Noble Lord then read the passage, which described the Hippodrome as a sort of metropolitan Ascot or Epsom. Now, he would appeal to the Honourable Member for Finsbury, as a man of honour and a man of candour, whether it would be desirable to have a place of this description within such a short distance of the metropolis? Mr. FOX MA ULE wished to set the House right with respect to a statement which had dropped from the Hon. Member for Marylebone. His Honourable Friend had asserted that the influence of Government had been brought to bear on this question. Now he did not hesitate to say, that not only was this not the fact, but that it would be a disgraceful thing for any Government to use their influence to forward the views of any private individual. What were the facts ? They found this Bill before the House, after passing through a Committee, who had reported favourably of it. The Bill had reference to the public sports cf the people, and as disturbances, they well knew, frequently occurred in such places, it was right that those who had charge of the public peace, should interfere to protect it, and it would probably have been made the ground of censure against them, if t!,ey had not. He begged the House, therefore, distinctly to understand that the part which he had taken with respect to this Bill was dictated solely by a sense of public duty. Lord GEORGE LENNOX rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide.") He hoped that as he was the person who had introduced this Bill he would be allowed to say a few words.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Marylebone appeared to have fallen into the same mistake as other Hon. Members, viz., that the object of this Bill was to sanction the Hippodrome Races.—( Hear.) Now he could assure the Hon. Member, that whether this Bill passed or not, these races would continue. On the same ground he would call on the Noble Lord, the Member for Durham, to support this Bill. The Noble Lord had stated, that this footpath had been the resort of scoundrels and vagabonds. Now he would say, shut up this footpath, and the scoundrels would be shut out from it.—( Hear, hear, and much laughter.) The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the Bill Against it 123 Majority 39 The Bill was then passed. Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Salford against the Manchester and Bury Canal Bill. PROMOTION IN THE MARINES. Lord W. LENNOX begged to remind the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Hor. - ...e Department, that some time since he had stated it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject of promotion in the marines and navy. He begged to ask the Noble Lord whether he could inform him when the Commission would be appointed, and whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to place any Officer of the Royal Marine Corps upon the Commission. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Commission had not yet been actually appointed, as it would take some time to con sider the names of the persons to be placed upon it. He begged to say that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Marine Officer on the Commission, and he hoped no further delay would take place.—(Hear.) Mr. LANGDALE, seeing the Hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies in his place, begged to ask him whether under the amended Bill with respect to the apprenticeship in the West Indies introduced by the Colonial-office, those apprentices who were bound apprentice in consequence of not being sup ported by their parents would remain apprentices to a later period than 1840, or whether, like the others, they would then obtain their entire freedom ? Sir GEORGE GREY said there was no doubt that, under the provisions of the Act of 1833, there were some parties so situated as to remain apprentices after that period. He be lieved they were not numerous, and he hoped to be able shortly to lay on the table of the House a return of the entire number. Mr. F. FRENCH seeing the Noble Lord (Mahon) in his place, begged to state that an Hon. Friend of his (Mr. French's) felt much grieved at some words which had fallen from the Noble Lord some nights ago. The gentleman to whom he alluded was continuing a work of great merit, and felt grieved at the criticism which fell from the Noble Lord in that House. He was an intimate friend of this, therefore he would give no opinion of this work, but ho trusted the Noble Lord would give some explanation. Lord MAHON—What he had stated was, that the con tinuation of the works of Sir James Mackintosh was done by an [inferior hand. He was sorry to give offence to any gentleman, either in or out of that House. It was his indi vidual opinion, and it was confined entirely to the literary merits of the work, and he still adhered to it. In answer to a question from Mr. Barron, Mr. C. WOOD said (as we understood), that the Admiralty had succeeded in establishing the line of packets between Dublin and Liverpool. They had not yet succeeded in establishing the station at Hobb's Point, not having packets of a superior description to spare for that service—those now employed, however, were much better than those formerly in ust by the Post-office. The passengers during the seven months of last year from Milford Haven, only averaged three in each packet—a traffic that would not authorize Government to spend a large sum of money upon the station. In consequence of the communication by railroads the whole current of the traffic was thrown into Liverpool. The Hon. Member added that in consequence of the weather that had occurred within the last two months, it had been found impossible to insure regular communication. SLAVERY. Mr. JAMES STEWART gave notice that he should in Committee on the Negro Apprenticeship Bill move a clause for the total abolition of Negro apprenticeship in .the island of Jamaica on the first of August 1838. Mr. WARBURTON inquired whether there would be any objection to lay •n the table of the House, the correspondence that had taken place between parties in New South Wales and the Colonial Department for permission to import Hill Coolies into New South Wales. Sir G. GREY said a proposition of that kind had been made, but was discountenanced by the Governor and the Go vernment. Mr. G. PALMER gave notice, that he would to-mouro w move for certain returns connected with the old Bankrupt Estates. CHURCH LEASES. Lord DUNGA NNON wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to introduce, during the present Session any specific measure relative to Church Leases? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was about to state when the Noble Lord put the question to him what he proposed to do with respect to the recess. On\Vcdnesday the 11th of April he proposed to move the adjournment of the House till the 24th, and he now begged leave to give notice to that effect. On moving the adjournment he would state the day on which be intended to more the appointment of the Committee on Church Leases, and he would give notice of an early day after the East er holidlys.—( Hear.) There were other questions with respect to which he deemed it right to inform the House of the course which he proposed to pursue. With respect to the Irish Poor-law Bill, he had been asked whether it would b e rea d a t hi rd time before Easter. That was not the intention. He would have it reported between this and the recess, and propose the third reading after the vacation. With respect to the Irish Municipal Bill, he would not bring it forward until a general discussion had taken place on the subject of Irish Tithes.—(Opposition cheers.) By this proceeding h e did no t mean to ma k e an y concession to the Right Ho n . B arone t oppos i te ( Si r R . Peel)—(Ministe rial cheers)—but merely because he was desirous of prevent ine: any long debate upon the question whether one measure should take precedence of the other. With respect to the Slavery Bill, which he was anxious to push forward, he would bring it on again on F r id a y, so t h at i t m i g ht be carried up to the other House before the recess. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the further consideration of this Bill take the precedence of the other Orders of the Day. The motion was agreed to. Sir R. PEEL said—l some time since expressed an opi nion, and it was an opinion which had the concurrence of other Members of the House, that it would be prudent be fore proceeding to consider the details of this measure to esta blishit somerspr, respect principle anycip l e amendment whic shouldof the p gev er r n e s our eh t system which deliberations wh e may be proposed. I shall avail myself of this opportunity, and submit to the House my general view, not so much of the details as of the principle by which it appears to me desirable that we should be guided. In the first place, it is of the consequenceut tmostihai of any h that t we n g like party character.—( e should r o t all inour p Cheers. ow er t o di v he trhh I apprehend that I may take it for granted that the general impression on both sides of the House with respect to the pre sent system is that it is a bad one. I gave an opinion the other day, in which I said that it would be highly desirable to discuss the question as to whether we should or should not transfer the adjudication upon questions of controverted elec tions from this House. I said I would, in the interval, apply myself diligently to the consideration of the question. I have done so, and the result of my determination is, that this House should not part with its jurisdiction.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to controverted elections, I shall now state the grounds upon which I have come to the conclusion why I hold that it would neither be for public or for private advan tage of the House at once to divest itself of this jurisdiction. For the conclusion to which I have come to I have double grounds. First I see a constitutional objection to the transfer of the privilege from the House, and next I find the utmost difficulty in conceiving any other appropriate tribunal. —( Hear, hear.) When I look to the early history of the proceedings of this House, I find it asserting this claim as one of the most important of its privileges.--( Hear, hear,) At a very early period of our constitutional history the House of Commons came into conflict with the Crown on this point, vindicating it as one of most vital importance. The first instance in which the right of the House to decide upon the return of its Mem bers was questioned, occurred in the reign of Elizabeth. The case occurred with respect to the county of Norfolk, and the following is the account given of it in .‘ Hallam'a Constitutional History." The Hon. Member then quoted the passage in question. The claim thus set up was not aban doned. It was insisted upon in the time of James the First: — The practice of making the House umpire in all disputed questions of return has been followed by every popular assem bly which has followed and adopted the form of the British Constitution. In the Chamber of Deputies in France the pri vilege of the House of Commons, with respect to these deci sions has been arrogated for the popular Assembly, and they claim the exclusive privilege of trying every question relating to the returns of their own Members. Indeed it appears to me that nothing but direct proof of the inability of the House to act justly between party and party, would warrant us in relin quishing the power which we at present possess.—( Hear, hear.) We should not lightly part with a privilege acquired in opposition to the claim of prerogative.—( Hear, hear.) If it is deemed advisable that the House should part with the pri vilege I perceive the utmost difficulty in finding out a tri bunal to supply its place. N ow, l et us ask to what tribunal the adjudicature with respect to controverted elections should be handed over. I apprehend that you would not refer them to any tribunal inferior to those which adjudi cate upon life and property.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, let us say that they are referred to the Judges of the land. For my part, I have a strong objection to seeing these functionaries mixed up with political questions of a party character.--( Wear. ) The universal conviction at present is, that the laws are ad ministered with the utmost impartiality—( Hear, hear) —and it is almost as important as the pure administration of justice ' itself to have the public think that those appointed to adminis ter it are placed beyond the possibility of prejudice or party. —( Hear, hear.) This, therefore, is an insuperable objection to the placing of such decisions in the hands of the Judges. Now, suppose this objection be overruled, let me ask, would you give the power of decision to a single Judge? If you do not this—if' you resort to the intervention of a Jury to inquire into the facts—how can you assume to yourselves that such a Jury would be more free from party bias than a Committee of the House ?—( [lsar.) By what law would the Judge be euided in such cases ? Would you require him to adhere strictly to those laws which govern the decisions in the Court of King's Bench ? If you do this, you will shut out those equitable constructions which practically prevail on in quiries of this nature. The Judge must be bound either to adhere to the Parliamentary law, or to make his decisions on strictly legal principles.—( Hear.) Now, either of these two modes of proceeding is open to objection.--( Hear, hear.) On the double ground, then, first, that it would be a depar ture from constitutional principle; and, next, because of the extreme difficulty of finding a competent tribunal, I feel my self obliged to come to the conclusion that nothing short of a perfect demonstration that it is necessary for the ends of jus , lice should induce this House to depart from its jurisdiction. —( Hear, hear ) Though I say this, I still say, at the same time, that if justice cannot be done by this intervention of the House, I hold the doing of justice to be of such paramount importance that if it cannot be done whilst the House holds this jurisdiction, that will be a greater reason—sufficient to overrule every objection.—( Cheers.) But, as I do not despair of finding in the House a tribunal better qualified than any other to adjudicate in controverted elections, and so constituted as to afford general satisfaction, I still hold it de sirable that we should retain our jurisdiction. There are fre quently on Committees of the House persons very little expe rienced in the law of Parliament. Their adjudications have rendered the law with respect to elections full of doubts, and it would be highly desirable to have some declaratory enact ment to clear up the doubts which have arisen frem adverse decisions. This I hold to be an important preliminary in any course which we may pursue. For instance, take the question of distance, upon which so many difficulties have arisen. What would be more easy than for the House to make some distinct enactment upon this point.—( Hear, hear.) Then, again, there is a que s ti on w i t h res p ec t t o t rus t ees o f c h ar iti es . Barristers have taken quite opposite views of this question, and when discussed by eminent lawyers nothing is more likely than that two Committees may come to opposite decisions upon the point.—( Hear, hear.) Again, with respect to overseers. It is not unlikely that an overseer, by some neglect or careless ness, might disfranchise one hundred bona fide voters.—( Hear, hear.) What could be more unjust than that persons in every way qualified should thus, by the neglect of a public officer, be at once disfranchised I know that there is much diffi culty in dealing with the question, and I am not inclined to overrate the advantages of the plan which I am about to pro pose. I grant it is impossible to foresee all the objections which will arise. With respect to bribery, there will always be extreme difficulties in ascertaining the fact, and doubts will arise on that point in every honest and conscientious mind. I do not flatter myself with the hope of obviating all necessity for future legislation, but I do hope that much may be done to do away with the great expense which is one of the most cry ing evils attached to this question. Let us see as a beginning whether we cannot diminish the ruinous expenditure which at P resent attends the prosecution of an election petition. As an essential preliminary, let a Committee be appointed to consi der of all the doubtful points which have already arisen.— (Hear.) I have endeavoured to ascertain what is the course persued with respect to the constitutional point by the dif ferent assemblies of other countries which stand in the relation of this House. They all seem to have followed our example, and appear to think that it is necessary for their integrity and independence to retain this jurisdiction. The countries which have in this respect modelled themselves upon our Con stitution are France and the United States. In France the ultimate decision rests in the Chamber of Deputies just as it was in this country in 1770, previously to the passing of the Grenville Act. The power of final adjudication is vested in the Honse. The following is the French mode of pro ceeding. The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to ex plain this mode. This is no rule for our decisions, as by the Grenville Act the adjudication by a Committee is considered as binding as a decision of the whole House. In the United States the course pursued is different. The following is the mode there adopted. The Right Hon. Baronet then entered into details illustrative of the American mode. I do not refer to those as matter of precedent, but merely to show what is the course pursued in other countries. Now, assuming that we keep the jurisdiction in our own hands, what is the prac tical mode of proceeding ? The first thing to consider is, what are the most prominent defects of the present sys tem ? It my earlier remembrance of the House the same c omplaints were not made which are made at present. The chief defect at present, as it appears to me arises from the preparatory proceeding. When the day fur the Ballot is fixed each party tries to assemble i n the greatest number possible, and the deepest interest is manifested for the result. At this large attendance the utmost eagerness is displayed as to what the chances will be. This initiatory anxiety taints the whole course of the pro ceedings.—( Hear, hear.) What is more likely to influence the opinions of those who are to sit as Judges upon the ques tion than this initiatory excitement t—( Hear.) The two things, then, which are principally to be guarded against are, first, the doubtfnl cases which have been decided, and next, freedom from party bias. Another objection to the present system lies in the unlimited operation of chance in the forma tion of the tribunal. If the House wishes to get rid of party feeling, why will it permit so much to depend on the opera tion of chance ?—( Hear, hear.) Does it not constantly occur that ten Members entertaining the same set of political opinions happened to be on a Committee with only one of the opposite party ?—( Hear, hear.) I know of two such cases which have occurred in the present Session. There is another objection to which the House should turn its attention, namely, the practice of striking off from the Committees the names of per sons whose opinions are entitled to some weight, and who aro acquainted with the law of Parliament. The object hi doing this is to get upon the Committees inexperienced persons, who, in doubtful cases would be likely to be won over by the speeches of clever Barristers. This appears to me to be the three main points of objection.—( Hear, hear.) The course then I should be inclined to propose is this. I should be desirous entirely to exempt parties front the onus of sum moningmd also the be d decisiones i r. opinions would o in u c s lu o d f n e , xc Members p lu e ( r li s i o l gthe n f n r t t i h h n e e t influence e o i c i m e o e m m i of m t t e c t . e h e a s n l l e v e s h b o o f s r u e o l in c ases o f Committee; and I should be desirous likewise of have weight in the House in all instances. The mode I should adopt to secure these desires would be this. After every general election the first act of the House of Commons in my mind should be to call over the names of all the Honourable Members, pith the view of directly ascertaining those who were liable to serve on Election Committees. I should b e very much disinclined to leave the exemption of any gi and a extenttio s s Members to the act mig o h f the t hec Hise itself, and I think any om m etesimuldspecifythen re atur; lo'fiebthe necessary attendance. It might be left an oaen matter to the affair Mi intersaddition of he to Cr t o h w o n se decideto themselves whethe r the, would choose to undertake the whichcon ductthey r have on their hands. The fi rs t t hi ng , t h en , t sk e e o d ar this e a d w eighty which should be done in my opinion would be to call over the House, to ascer t a in who were liable or w h o were not li a b le to serve on election committees. I much doubt, however, whether or no I should object to those who had petitions pending against their own return.—( Hear, hear.) The next course I should propose to take would he this—it is one founded in s part on the practice of the United States of North America, and partly on the suggestions of my own experi ence. I see a very great objection in calli ng i n too frequently the interp osit i on of the S peaker in such cases. I think that the Ju d g e in this House should not b e per petually subjected to the too severe int erpretation of the motives of his actio ns b y p arties without. All I should therefore require of the Speaker vs ould be the p er f ormance of one act—an act whic h I am sure he would p er form with im partiality and strict justice—in such a manner as to give the fullest satisfaction to all parties as well as to the country. I should leave to him the n omination of a Committee from the • of elections. This C omm have have comp ose d o f a body of the House, whic h I should call the G enera l Committee I would i very few Members, four or six, not more ; an d I s h ou l d trust implicitly to the Spea ker to make such a selection for it as would satisfy the House and fee country. If, however, it were deemed necessary the House should have the sanctioning of his choice, or he might , p erhaps, have onl y the power of proposing the names of all tho s e he dee me d moat eligible for the House itself to snake the selection. On that Committee—thus se lected by the Speaker I shall suppose or I take it for granted that it would be formed with the greatest impartiality—on that Committee, then, acting under the solemn obligation of an oath, should devolve, by my plan, the selection of all Committees to try controverted elections. You might, in sanc tioning the selection, either appropriate a Committee specifically to every petition, or you might, if vou so chose, apportion one to several petitions of the Fame class; or you might make it by lot which Committee should have the trial of each petition. But I have such a decided objection to the introduction of chance into the decision of any question of this nature that I should much rather leave the a ppointment to the Committee itself. I would next have the Committee thus selected for the trial of election petitions limited in the number of its members. In my opinion seven members would be quite sufficient for all useful purposes. At an y rate, I think nine should be the grea t es t number on any of them. If you th oug h t mistakes might still arise from the adoption of this portion of my plan you might require the Ge neral Committee of Elections to return, instead of the abso lute and limited number of seven, the reducible number of eleven or thirteen : and then, to prevent any cavilling, give the p a rties intere s t e d on both sides a power of striking off one or two Members each until they were reduced to seven, which number I hold to be quite sufficient. Suppose, then, you have determined to make this number of seven the ultimate number of the Committee, and suppose the Committee formed either absolutely, or by reduction from thirteen or eleven to that amount, I would then give it the aid of a legal assistant or assessor, t w-L ceeyee you choose to call it. This you might do in two ways. In the first place you might compose your Com mittee of six Hon. Members, and make the legal assistant or assessor the Chairman, his office to be to dispose of all points of law which might arise in the course of the inquiry, and to give, by his authority, the weight of a judgment to the deci sion of the Committee; in fact, to give him the power and invest him with the authority of a Judge equal in this respect to any other Judge in the land ; or you might, in the second place, constitute your Committee of seven Members as be fore, giving them the aid of an assessor. Of the two I most incline to the latter, inasmuch as it has the greatest ten tency to preserve the judicial authority to the House it self.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I should propose to ap point these assessors thus :—I would desire all parties who considered themselves competent to act as assessors from the extent and variety of their legal knowledge and acquire 'acres to signify the same to the Speaker, and their willing-' ness to undertake the duty. This done, I would have the Speaker to certify their application to the General Committee of Elections, and leave the further selection of the parties to them. I would make ample provision for the payment of those assessors, but I would do no more. I would give no man erelong them a permanent appointment. I would create no thinglte a standing staff of lawyers at an enormous expense. I should, howevee, make that allowance so ample, that it ; would be sufficient to tempt men to serve us whose opinions I as Judges would have weight With all parties, whose learning as lawyers was tintittestiernable in the country. I should, as I have said, give the tipeaker the main power to appoint. the General Committee. I should gird the Gene ral Committee the power of selecting Election Comteittees, and I should give the Speaker the presentment and the General Committee_ the ' appointment of assessors. None in regard to 831eNSON. Sup pose, for instance, any leffal point arose in the trial of a case before an Election Committee, which the assessor did not oe cide to the satisfaction of the parties on the Committee, nothing could be easier than to constitute a general Court of Apocal from all the assessors of all the Committeee ict determine it. My plan would then have these general principles :—lt would require no attendance of Members previously to their appointment to Committees, as is the case at present—it would altogether exclude the Ballot—and I trust that it would present to the House a tribunal, not alone constituted to do justice without favour or impartiality, but to give satisfaction to the House and the country. It would also secure a competent number of Members of expe rience and knowledge of the business of the House and the country as regarded election petitions. Ido not consider myself at liberty to trouble the House any further on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) The suggestions which I have yen , tured to offer are exclusively my own ; no one but myself is accountable fur any defect which they may possess in the minds of Hon. Members. I object to the Bill of the lion. Member for Liskeard, because it is etill open to the radical derect of commencing initiatory proceedings under the influ ence of party feeling and party excitement—because for that reason it gives an interest to as many Members to attend as possible. lam afraid that the challenge which it gives will have no useful tendency, because I still think that the same motives may influence parties then, as at present, in striking off good experienced names and keeping on those of young and inexperienced Members. Unless we adopt some mode which is fundamentally different from that proposed by the Hon. Member I see no hope of advantage from the Bill ; for it is only applying a partial and local remedy to an evil which is generally diffused over the system. That is my chief objection to the Honourable Gentleman's measure ; and that, in my mind, is fatal to it. With respect to the appointment of assessors, however, I must say one word which I have omitted in its proper place. What I would wish to observe is this—such is the advantage of a mutual agreement between contending parties that I would do all I reasonably could to promote it. I mean in respect to unanimity in the choice of an assessor. When we recollect how often parties at issue elsewhere on other matters have agreed on the appointment of an arbitrator, 1 am of opinion that there can be little or no difficulty in getting them to agree in the appointment of an assessor here. It is a sound principle in the jurisprudence of a country which not alone permits par ties to agree as to the settlement of their difficulties out of Court, but even promotes that agreement by sanctioning and even inviting the choice of their arbitrator. These are the suggestions I have to offer to the House. They are entirely my own—they are not those of others. Mr. O'CONNELL now rose to propose the appointment of a Select Committee for the consideration of the Grenville Act, and for the purpose of providing a remedy for the evil complained of. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that there were two kinds of law by which to try the validity of elec tions—the common law and the statute law. Now, by the latter Hon. Gentlemen held not alone their estates but their seats in Parliament; and of all the clumsy tribunals that had ever been imagined for its administration, there was none more clumsy than a Committee of eleven Members of that House. The Right Hon. Baronet objected to the law of elections as being of an indeinite nature. Why not define it then ? Why leave it to the interpretation of Hon. Members, who might be altogether ignorant of law ? Why constitute them the sole judges of law and of fact ? He (Mr. O'Connell's) !proposal was, that a Committee of five should be selected by the Speaker for adjudication upon cases in petition; and that that Committee should have the power of sending the issues on them to be tried by the Court of Queen's Bench se parately, and as near as possible to ;the place where the facts in question arose, and could be decided on with impartiality. In Ireland, for instance, the Irish petitions to be tried in the nearest county to that where the witnesses resided, always subject to the opinion of the Judge as to the possibility of ob taining a fair trial. But these were only details which it would not be advisable to discuss further. He might be told that the plan of trying issues by Juries was open to the objec tion of great expense and great diversity in the decisions. But what was the case at present ? The last Dublin Elec tion Committee sat for 92 days, and entered into 735 cases of disputed votes. For eighteen months it was occupied in the examination of witnesses. All that might be done in a fort night, and the enormous expense to which the parties were put would be spared, if some such system as that which he pro posed had then been adopted. The gentlemen of England were accused in the strongest manner by the Press on both sides of acting in a manner regardless of their oaths. They were Magistrates and Judges too, in their own counties, and would be fining and confining, and pronouncing judgments on criminals ; but of what weight would their sentence be if the Press still proclaimed, as it did at present, the voice of public opinion, that the sanctity of an oath was held as nothing in their eyes, and that their decisions were governed only by party bias? They ought on both sides to join to get rid of it. Take this session the decisions of the Committees, and they would find that the majority of them were given in favour of the individual whose political opinions accorded with those of the majority of the individual Committees. Much that had been suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, might be effected with advantage. His remark as to the Irish re gistry was perfectly true. Gentlemen of respectability on one Committee had, on their oath, declared that the registry was to be opened, while others, equally respectable, declared on oath that it was not He saw great difficulty in the arrange ment of any special code of laws on this subject. It was not the law the people complained of, but the Judges. The fran chise ought, by all means, to be defined and settled as a pre liminary step.—( Hear.) He would move accordingly that the whole subject be referred to the consideration of a select Committee, with instructions to report to the House. Mr. C. BULLER said that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Dublin was one of the most extraordinary that he had me. r I ©:rd of—no less than that a Select Committee should sit to do over again the work which another Committee had already done at the desire of the House, and whose report was now before them. The Hon. Member for Dublin's plan was very simple, but very expensive ; it was merely to transfer from that House to the tribunals of Westminster Hall all the ques tions of controverted elections that came before them. But he was glad that the Right lion. Baronet opposite had come forward and successfully opposed the Conservative strength of his principles to one of the most rash, fallacious, and unconsti tutional plans that had ever been suggested.--( Cheers.) The House was highly indebted to the Right Hon. Baronet for the example he had set them of commencing the debate.—( Hear, hear)—and in the business-like and gentlemanly tone he had adopted throughout—an example which he would be happy to see followed on all occasions, and which he (Mr. Buller would endeavour to imitate on ;his.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Dublin told them what Judge he intended should preside in his proposed tribunal ; but he did not tell them in which class or county he hoped to find an impartial jury. [lobed not, in fact, told them the working details of his plan. Asto the plan of appointing a Committee to select the issues to be sent for trial at Westminster Hall, that was the most inconsistent of ante for it presumed that Members were incapable of try ing what they were to have the power of deciding whether it should be tried or not.—(lean) But the mail question, after al', which the Hon. Member for Dublin's proposal ob liged them t o as k was — w h at J ury cou ld t h ey get i n E ng l an d that would be above party bias or above the suspicion of it ? (Hear.) That Hon, Member had not always been used to speals in sueh high terms of Judges, Juries, and ordinary tri bunals.—( Hear.) Since he (Mr. Buller) had been engaged in the legal profession he had never heard any political case brought forward in which the Judge and Jury had not been made the subject of as flagrant observations as any that he had ever heard uttered by the Honourable Member for Dub lin throughout that discussion.—( Hear, hear.) At the bar, and among the profession generally, there was as much dis cussion of good or bad Judges and Juries as there was in the House of good or bad Committees.—( Hear, hear.) Had his party forgotten their own opinions of the law of libel in former days, before they became a majority, and their com monly expressed conviction that the Tory Judges stretched the law against the subject whenever they could? Again, in Ireland at the present day they have a power of appeal from the Registering Barrister to the .Judeg of Assize, which is constantly exerted. The Hon. Member for Dublin had cha racterised these Judges as being ten Tories and two Liberals. Now it was the general opinion that it was the interest of the firmer party to narrow the franchise, and of the latter to ex tend it; and it was currently said that wherever the ten Tory Judges went, they did narrow it accordingly, and wherever t h e two latter appeared, they extended it. —(" Hear," and laughter.) They might be certain that whatever plan they adopted, the individuals engaged in it would immediately be accused of partiality by the public ; the purity of the ermine was, however, too sacred to be lightly exposed and sullied by popular odium.—( Hear, hear.) lie repeated that a more un called-for, chimerical and dangerous plan than that of the Honourable Member for Dublin had never been brought for ward. —( Hear, hear. ) His opinion, he was happy to say, coincided with the ideas developed by the Right fionournble Baronet respecting the three great defects ie the present con stitution of election Committees. Fist, as to selecting the Members, or, as it was vulgarly called, " striking tl e]Com rnittee." He had also proposed in the select Committee of which he was the chairman that the selection should not depend on the presence of the individual, but that if called he should be obliged to serve. However, this was left out of the present Bill (together with a proposition that panels of sixty should be chosen each day) in consequence of the diffi culty of pleasing individuals aho quarrelled with his Bill in detail, composed as it unforametely was of several uncoil eected parts. He could not agree cs ith the Right lion. ila. ronet that the chance system was bad ; indeed it seemed ae indispensable quality in the Jury systena—( A laugh.) lie did not think that it was better to select a Committee than to have the Committee appointed by chance. The beet plan would he a peremptory challenge, without assigning cause. He did not see much difference between his own plan and that of the Right lion. Baronet, but he did object to the present mode of trying controverted elections, because it often hap pened that the Committee knew nothing about the matter they had to try. He objected to the assessors being a fluc tuating body.—(Hear.) He thought it would be better to have a permanent Judge, because he thotight ay t, 7 ! ,,,, 12gal knowledge was necessary in a legs,' tr;411,14 F : , ,-i_, .- -- - , --L:::‘,:!: would be best, in his opinion, first to s;mp/ity -.dm iftw,,y . 04 1 ,..-,,,: 4---- ,... \ ‘ ' liament before any change was made, and in :hilt, freilaes34,,': :: :.A:w.. % ,. ) with the Noble Lord the Member for North Lanc 'iliko.la , v:::4-ti,;',-: 7 1 \ 02,..._t right of voting was a paramount right, and ought ‘6 , ',.... 31 1i .0 ur..- t ,..--__' Oiled. If the Ballot were adopted nine-tenths of V.' s -fes, i ---1___,,, , c. „- tions that came before Committees would be done a - ' vii-14 : -, --. 1 ... ~....." As to the number of the Committee, he thou 01 1 7 fly atitNed.S,llaNl number than seven, as proposed by the Right' Hon. Baronet opposite. His opinion was that the smaller tie nurn'Jer the better. He did not believe the charge that lit'd bee:. made. against Members serving on Committees when they were ac cused of having a total disregard for oaths; but he thought all men were liable to be biassed by circumstances. On the whole, he thought his own plan sufficient to cure all the exist ing evil ; but if this were not adopted he should be contented with the adoption of any other that would operate as a re medy to the existing evils of which the public so loudly com plained. Mr. GIBSON did not think it right to invest a Barrister of seven years' standing as an assessor with so extensive an autho rity as was proposed, as his station would not give him a sail dent m0f.21 controul. He denied that the reduction of the members of the Committee would be any great advantage, for their integrity could not be increased by reducing their numbers. Sir W. FOLLETT confessed that be was not at that moment competent to form an opinion practically upon e ith er of those plans. There were now several distinct propositions before the House. There was the plan of the lion. and Learned Member for Liskeard, and there was the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, to have the whole subject referred to a Committee, with a view to con. sidering a plan of its own ; and then, again, there were the suggestions of the Right Honourable Baronet the Mem ber for Tamworth. He hoped, also, that the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire would bring forward his proposal for an improved alteration in the law of Par liament. He would now proceed to offer some observa tions on the plan of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, who deserved much credit for the attention he had paid to the subject. He believed there was now no Member of that House who did not feel that some alteration was neces sary to remove the universal dissatisfaction that prevailed in the public mind upon this subject, and the belief that at pre sent justice was not fairly administered under the system that now prevailed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then pro ceeded to say that he did not feel the same objection in a con stitutional point of view with regard to removing the jurisdic tion in Election Committees from that House which had been expressed that evening by the Right Honourable .. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( Hear.) With respect to the Bill before the House, he would ask to what extent did they in tend to carry it ? He unde - vetood that it was the wish of Ho nourable Gentlemen opposite t a , make the decisions of the Assessing Barristers final and cuo eslusive.—(Hear, hear, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) But was not that aban doning a principle?—( Hear.) H e , " as at a loss to see why there was a distinction in the present tll between that which related to the qualification of voters and te l 'at which related to bribery. And, with respect to sendieg the : nal of a contro vertedforesaw the election before a Judge or a jury, greatest possible difficulties. As far as the judge. 3 of the land were concerned, they might trust and place confiden"ee in them :o the fullest extent ; but in his opinion they would fits d it next to impossible to get an impartial jury. He did not think that. t elec tion petitions were of such a nature that they could be settled by a mere trial of an issue before a jury ; he did not think such a plan by any means practicable ; and, even if it were practicable, it would, he thought, lead to greater evils than at present resulted from the existing tribunals. He had not, ne fact, heard any suggestion from any quarter of a tribunal out of that House that would not be liable to very great objec tions.—( Hear, hear.) It was for the I;ouse, then, to consider what sort of tribunal there might be established. With this view it must first be considered what it was that rendered the present tribunals so bad and so objectionable, He would at once broadly state that the mode in which the exise.'ng tribunals decided upon election petitions was not the result of any cor rupt wish on the part of the Members composing them to decide with any reference to party feeling, but that it was the vatural effect of that House having appointed tribunals to try masters for which they were wholly incompetent.—( Hear, hear.) An election petition was got up at an enormous expense, and the first thing for the Committee to decide was whether they hada jurisdiction or not, and one thing was decided in one room and'. another in an adjoining one.—( Hear.) That was not, in his opinion, the fault of the Committee—( Hear)--and it was the imperative duty of the Legislature, where so many doubts as to what was really the law existing, to remove those doubts at once, and then to set about some means of carrying into effect a further remedy for existing evils, and to see justice eff_.ctually administered. The same objections were applicable with reference to the Reform Bill—one Committee came to one decision and one to another. Now all this might be set Tight if a body of competent persons were to decide what was right and what was wrong by means of a declaratory Act . - -( Hear, hear.) But he could not help saying that he was , not sanguine that any:declaratory Act whatever would have the efr et of doing everything that was wanted—of removing every difficulty. A declaratory Act might certainly prevent the difficulties which had arisen from arising again, and go so far as to remove from their proceedings much of that scandal which had hitherto attached to them. On that account be should give his support to the proposition of his Noble Friend near him ( Lord Stanley ), that a declaratory Act should be adopted.—( Hear.) The objections to the present system were chiefly twofold—the incompetency of the tribunal, and the party bias suspected to prevail; and with respect to the Bill of h is Hon . .. and Learned Friend the Member for Liskeard he could not say that he seas prepared to adopt his provision with reference to a diminution of the number of the Committee.—( Hear.) There Nvero also several other provisions in the measure of his Hon. and Learned Friend, to which he could not give his assent. With respect to that part of the Bill in which his lion. and Learned Friend had embodied portions of the Re port of the Committee of 1836. he thought that the best part of that Report was that which he had omitted to adopt. With respect to the assessors, the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman appointed three, at a salary of 2.5001. each, and he (Sir W. Follett) thought that he must have lost sight of his own Bill, when he attacked the Right Hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) proposal to have judges for the nonce. He much doubted whether this part of the Bill was correctly known to the House. The Speaker was to have the appointments, and if the House disapproved of the names of those who were appointed, after they were laid on the table of the House, they had no remedy, but must still go on the same way and continue dissatisfied. And, after all, these assessors would have no real power what ever. llis Hon. and Learned Friend's Bill said they should have the same powers as was now exercised by the Chairman of Committees, except as to voting. Why, the Chair man of a Committee had no power now but the power of voting.—( Hear, hear.) But how was this provision to act ? It required that the assessor should state hie. own opinion ateer the Committee should have come to a decision upon the casso How would that work? He was, in fact to 'nave no power, but was only to act in verecundiant, as it were, over the Com mittee. He had attempted to show to the House all these essential alterations of the system, and he trust say that his opinion was, thit instead of tendiag to remove the evils ; they would very materially add to them. One word more, how ever, as to the appointment of these assessors. He had thought his Hon. and Learned Friend bed intended that they should be a body of competent men, understanding the ques tions of law likely to come before them, and have the power to lay down or sum up to the Committee what the law was. It was his opinion that such a power would be well conferred and good, but then according to the plan proposed, it Was to ho t power without authority, whereas the assessors ought un doubtedly to have the powerof stating their views openly, and in the face of the public. With respect to the amendment of the Hun. and Learned Member for Dublin he trusted he would persist in it, and it was in every way objectionable. Lord STANLEY said that all the evils of the present system were admitted, and, according to the doctrine of the chances on which all their proceedings went, be might assert that, supposing on the occasion of an electi , n ballot the House were so nearly divided that there should be 170 Members on one side, and 160 on the oil) , r, there was almost a certain m-,jority to be made in favour of the side our which there was the largest number of Menthers.—( Hear.) On one side they would have 17, and on the other 16, and, in the same propor tion, with 11 strikes, they would have six on one side, and five on the other.—( Hear.) He was not saying this in defence of the system, but as showing hew the chances ran, and that a party bias under the present system must almost inevitably be found on a Committee. The Committee which he ( Lord Stanley) wished to propose was not a following up of the mu tioe of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but was r ther a superseding of it. The Noble Lord then said that an iustruc tion was intended to have been moved by the Honourable Member for Lancaster, to divide the House into bodies of sixty each, from which the panels were to be struck. But that part of the recommendation of the Committee the Honourable Gentleman would exclude altogether. It was part of the recommendation of the Committee of 1836, but still it was rejected by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, although he confessed that. his Bill was composed of various parts, each of which was founded on the suggestions of those is hem he consulted on the subject rather than on his own in dividual opinion. The lion. Gentleman's Bill, there fore, was no better than a piece of patchwork—( Hear)—and as to the striking of the panels of sixty Members it would be no strike at all, but a mere matter of chance. With regard to the as sessors which the Hod. Member for Liskeard proposed, be (Lord Stanley) could only say that he objected to that pro posal, both with reference to the appointment of those asses sors and as to the duties which they were intended to dis charge. Committees now consisted of eleven Members, but when they were redieted to ten all questions were decided by the c istiug vote of die Chairman. Now bow would the Corn wince of five proposed by the Hop. Member for Liskeard stand in the event of being reduced to four ? The Chairman would have no casting vote, and consequently two on each side were opposed to any resolution it v.oald follow that it could net pass. Pessing however, by the Bill of the Honourable Member for Liskeard, he would now offer for the consideration of the House a suggestion ef his own, and that was, the pr priety of appointing a Select Cord- - mince to enquire into the conflicting, decisions of KI dims Cemmittees in point; of late, and also how far it would possible, by a declaratory enactment, to simplify the duties of these tribunals in future, wi h a view to rendering their de o'sons more uniform a tel cero i i. There were a considerable number of difficulties which might be obviated by a declara tory enactment. For example, the opening or closing the registry, and the question as to the test of qualification i n Irish elections. were instances of this kind which mi4lit be mentioned. The Hon. and Learned Member for D u bli n was for getting rid of the test of qualification ; but how was that to be doge ? There was hard swearing on both side s , atel thee Committee had to decide the question as a matter of fact. This was a difficulty which not unfrequently embarrassed a THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1838. X it